A batch of patents alleged to cover simple scan-to-e-mail functions gained notoriety last year when they were used to demand $1,000 per worker from small businesses around the country. The anonymously owned MPHJ Technology Investments has been denounced in Congress and held up as a poster child for a system run amok.

While eyebrow-raising patent claims have been on the rise for years, MPHJ's claims stood out. Attorneys general in Vermont and Nebraska have attacked MPHJ in court, saying the company's vague demand letters violate state consumer-protection laws.

After a year of threats, MPHJ filed its first actual lawsuit in November. Now, a batch of four new suits have been filed against three large companies and one medium-sized one. The defendants, all sued on January 3 in Delaware, are: the Coca-Cola Company (PDF); Dillard's (PDF), a department store that operates in 29 states and has about 38,000 employees; Unum Group (PDF), a Tennessee-based insurance company with over 10,000 workers; and Huhtamaki (PDF), a consumer goods and packaging company with 400 employees.

The complaints describe the IT infrastructure of each company, apparently based on publicly available information. In the case of Coca-Cola for instance, MPHJ says the company transmits "electronic images, graphics and/or documents via a communications network from a network addressable scanner, digital copier, or other multifunction peripheral," which allegedly infringes MPHJ's patents. Coca-Cola uses a "standardized infrastructure of Lexmark C772 color and T644 monochrome laser printers, as well as Lexmark X642e and X646dte MFPs, all connected to the company’s network and integrated with the company’s FileNet system," write MPHJ's lawyers, from the Farney Daniels law firm.

The four lawsuits are a major escalation in the battle over the MPHJ patents. They're remarkably long; the suit against Unum group is 47 pages, and the one against Huhtakami is 66 pages. In part, such detail about the nature of infringement suggests that MPHJ is responding to claims that its demands in the past have been too vague.

The lawsuits claim that two patents, numbered 8,488,173 and 7,477,410, are infringed because the companies use printer and other "multifunction peripherals," or MFPs, made by Xerox and Lexmark. The patents were issued in 2013 and 2009, respectively, but both claim priority back to applications filed in 1996.

The MPHJ patents were invented by Laurence Klein. According to MPHJ lawyers, Klein ran an IT company during that period, but it was ultimately unsuccessful so Klein sold his patents.

While companies like Xerox, Ricoh, Lexmark, and Hewlett-Packard remain at odds with MPHJ, others have apparently struck deals to protect their customers. The new complaints announce that MPHJ won't be going after users of printers or MFPs made by Canon and Sharp since those companies have struck agreements with MPHJ. The complaints read:

Canon, Inc. has entered into an agreement with MPHJ that includes certain provisions for the benefit of Canon customers. One provision is a covenant-not-to-sue for the benefit of any company otherwise infringing the Patents, which applies only where all of the scanners or MFPs that are part of any infringing system of that company are Canon Products. On information and belief, this provision is not applicable to Defendant.

Similar language applies to Sharp customers.

The MPHJ patent campaign has become one of the most reviled in the nation. "We consider this similar to garden-variety extortion," said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, at a US Senate hearing in which "patent trolls" like MPHJ were called "bottom feeders."

UPDATE: The original article incorrectly identified Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning as "Jim Bruning." Ars regrets the error and has corrected the original story.

How is this even possible? Suing the companies using alleged products with infringing patents, really? This is the equivalent of suing a firearm company because a murderer used their product to kill.

Look, I hate to say it, but "hate the game, not the player". These are "business method patents" : the very act of running a business using a patented process is what they're suing about. Unless the manufacturer of the device is also using that process, it's entirely possible that they _can't_ sue the manufacturer.

The entire patent system is broken. There are two fundamental categories that simply don't work:- Computer software (for those patents which are merely an instantiation of mathematical algorithms)- Business methods (for those patents which claim an "invention" for obvious, day to day practices in a normal office)

The patents in question were affirmed by the USPTO : the inventors have the right to protect their intellectual property. The problem is that the so-called "intellectual property" is a legal fantasy that is made real by patent law.

If Google was truly "not being evil" (and if Microsoft and IBM had any sense) then they would actively try to prevent this kind of patent by lobbying for _real_ patent reform, which means making certain types of things un-patentable, not making it easier to make stupid patents.

This is the world we live in and I think we have only two options: pay up, or change the system.

I thought patent infringement only applies implementing, not use. Otherwise I could create a patent, sell something that uses said patent, then sue my own end users because my users only purchased the license to use my product, but the patent that the product implements.

I thought patent infringement only applies implementing, not use. Otherwise I could create a patent, sell something that uses said patent, then sue my own end users because my users only purchased the license to use my product, but the patent that the product implements.

I believe what they're claiming isn't that the scanner itself violates the patents, but rather that hooking the scanner up to a network is "inventing" a system that violates the patents. That's why they're going after end users rather than the manufacturers. I think it's idiotic of course, but that's the legal reasoning anyway.

I thought patent infringement only applies implementing, not use. Otherwise I could create a patent, sell something that uses said patent, then sue my own end users because my users only purchased the license to use my product, but the patent that the product implements.

I believe it goes something like: If it's your patent, and your product, it's assumed that you wouldn't be selling it if you didn't want them to use it, so your customers cannot be infringing your patent. If it's your product, but someone else's patent, the customer cannot be assumed not to be infringing, because the patent-holder had no chance to approve of selling the product.

If Google was truly "not being evil" (and if Microsoft and IBM had any sense) then they would actively try to prevent this kind of patent by lobbying for _real_ patent reform, which means making certain types of things un-patentable, not making it easier to make stupid patents.

I would think Google, who laments MS and apple buying up via rockstar in 2011, is doing just that.

Bill Gates lamented that it would happen, but instead, did the exact thing they lamented.

(Side note: John Gruber of daringfireball calls Google pussies for complaining about not winning the nortel patents and for android being targeted, and Florian Mueller calls Google hypocrites for the way they hate patents, oh he just hates them period for whatever reason.)

MPHJ: Attorney…that Coca-Cola Company. I want you to sue the pants off it. There may be some change in there.

Lawyer: That's private enterprise.

MPHJ: Attorney! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your practice, legal framework, way of life and everything, when they learn that you have neglected to uphold the intellectual property laws of the United States? Can you imagine?! Sue them all! Sue! In the court, that's what jury trials are for, you twit!

Lawyer: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get a settlement before a Federal court on your patent, you know what's gonna happen to you?

Just a minor point of correction. It is Huhtamaki, not Huhtakami. They have a production facility about 20 minutes down the highway from where I live so this stood out to me.

To be more nitpicky (sorry).

The official name of the corporation is Huhtamäki, altough they switch the Ä into A in their logo (Used to live close their HQ). And they have quite a bit more employees than the 400 mentioned in the article. That number is propably just for their american subsidiary.

MPHJ: Attorney…that Coca-Cola Company. I want you to sue the pants off it. There may be some change in there.

Lawyer: That's private enterprise.

MPHJ: Attorney! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your practice, legal framework, way of life and everything, when they learn that you have neglected to uphold the intellectual property laws of the United States? Can you imagine?! Sue them all! Sue! In the court, that's what jury trials are for, you twit!

Lawyer: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get a settlement before a Federal court on your patent, you know what's gonna happen to you?

Interesting, as my old employer was using Xerox equipment well before said 2003 patent to scan and send via e-mail. I always thought it was a Xerox feature/benefit of their OCR software.

The article says:The patents were issued in 2013 and 2009, respectively, but both claim priority back to applications filed in 1996.

Thus, Xerox would have had to have been doing it before 1996 in order to constitute prior art. Possible, but it seems quite unlikely.

Oops, my bad, about the date. Xerox was offering networked printing/scan/fax systems with ocr capabilities in 1996. I had a lot of friends in tech working at Xerox who maintained their enterprise platforms/systems, (and how I managed to get interviews in the field). I also ran an enterprise scale print system in the late 90s early 2000's. So, I do know for a fact their system was used regularly to scan to e-mail or whatever destination available to the network. Hence, my surprise that this was a patented process by any company other than Xerox.

Interesting, as my old employer was using Xerox equipment well before said 2003 patent to scan and send via e-mail. I always thought it was a Xerox feature/benefit of their OCR software.

The article says:The patents were issued in 2013 and 2009, respectively, but both claim priority back to applications filed in 1996.

Thus, Xerox would have had to have been doing it before 1996 in order to constitute prior art. Possible, but it seems quite unlikely.

Modern SMTP email was defined in the early 80s (although email itself is around half a century old).Xerox's XNS networking protocols from the 1980's would probably have been perfectly capable of it.I know xerox had industrial network scanner/copiers in the early 90's although only the docutech series comes to mind.

The patents were issued in 2013 and 2009, respectively, but both claim priority back to applications filed in 1996.

This is like that joke template, "X called, they want their Y back", where X is an era and Y is some archaic practice. Except in this case it is more like "X called, they sold their Y to some scum-sack lawyers and idle rich douchebags, who now want Z dollars per use."

Interesting, as my old employer was using Xerox equipment well before said 2003 patent to scan and send via e-mail. I always thought it was a Xerox feature/benefit of their OCR software.

The article says:The patents were issued in 2013 and 2009, respectively, but both claim priority back to applications filed in 1996.

Thus, Xerox would have had to have been doing it before 1996 in order to constitute prior art. Possible, but it seems quite unlikely.

Modern SMTP email was defined in the early 80s (although email itself is around half a century old).Xerox's XNS networking protocols from the 1980's would probably have been perfectly capable of it.I know xerox had industrial network scanner/copiers in the early 90's although only the docutech series comes to mind.

Docuscan was the mid level networked printer scanner, Docutech was industrial/enterprise scale with its own cisco servers and could interpose, staple, bind or whatever. Totally programmable input at the secondary interface, along with billing, network workflow optimization, etc. Could literaly print millions of copies a month. I believe 120 to 180 a minute based on series.

Well at least this time they're going after companies with the means to defend themselves, I never thought id be backing Coca Cola in anything but I hope they hire a veritable army of lawyers and crush every single point raised in the lawsuit and invalidate the patents to boot. Will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

MPHJ: Attorney…that Coca-Cola Company. I want you to sue the pants off it. There may be some change in there.

Lawyer: That's private enterprise.

MPHJ: Attorney! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your practice, legal framework, way of life and everything, when they learn that you have neglected to uphold the intellectual property laws of the United States? Can you imagine?! Sue them all! Sue! In the court, that's what jury trials are for, you twit!

Lawyer: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get a settlement before a Federal court on your patent, you know what's gonna happen to you?

So how soon until a crowd-sourced investigation of MPHJ Technology Investments occurs to turn up any possible infraction of patents themselves, or lapses in software licensing, or other general misbehavior?

I just seems that the patent trolls have painted a big red target on their own backs, just begging one of their defendants to take aim.

Interesting, as my old employer was using Xerox equipment well before said 2003 patent to scan and send via e-mail. I always thought it was a Xerox feature/benefit of their OCR software.

We started doing something very similar to what was described in the original patent at the Univ. Of MN, Duluth Inter-Library Loan in 1997 with a Konica scanner and the campus email system. I'm surprised this set of patents has been found valid by the USPTO when reviewed, since they violate the obviousness and prior art criteria. Clearly, coming up with an all in one solution was obvious (and a topic of frequent discussion in the broader lending library community at the time). If anybody goes to court and loses the case to the patent holder, I question the competence of their defense team.

For what its worth, if there was a penalty for those who file such clearly egregious patent applications (e.g. sanctions for the attorney), some of the trolls would start to go away.

For what its worth, if there was a penalty for those who file such clearly egregious patent applications (e.g. sanctions for the attorney), some of the trolls would start to go away.

The key word here is attorney - as long as lawyers are a protected species under the law they can get away with these insane lawsuits. To me, these so called business practice patents are downright stupid.

Should I file a patent for the process of putting a piece of paper in a folder and then placing said folder containing that paper into a steel or wood drawer in a cabinet of the same material for the purpose of archiving that said paper? The patent being NOT on the container, but on the action (process) of moving said paper from some other unspecified location into the container through the use of a folder. The secretary that performed the action now becomes the target of a lawsuit.

That is exactly what I am seeing with these kind of patents.

If the USPTO were doing their job properly, these obvious uses of things would never be patented. (patent law even says that obvious things cannot be patented) and the judges ( who are all lawyers themselves) would swat down these frivolous lawsuits as the obvious attempt at blackmail they are. - Pay me or I'll sue should not be a business model.